Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

A Few More TREK Images From Empire!!

HOLY SHIT! by Kingdaddy	Oct 28th, 2008 10:16:48 AM
I want to go to BNAT!!!
Oh.... by Kingdaddy	Oct 28th, 2008 10:17:36 AM
and I guess the pics are kinda cool.
Links posts suck by gruntybear	Oct 28th, 2008 10:18:43 AM
Either host the pictures here or don't bother.
In a... by Kingdaddy	Oct 28th, 2008 10:18:52 AM
WB kinda gay teen love kinda way.
Too much makeup by jacksparness	Oct 28th, 2008 10:19:30 AM
seriously, who knew that Spock was sorry worried about his complexion.
enough of this....more FOOTLOOSE news please!! by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Oct 28th, 2008 10:19:56 AM

new Kirk's hair is too big by snowtires	Oct 28th, 2008 10:21:34 AM
Also, he looks like a completely generic Abercrombie model.
I today's world of high def photography by Turd Furgeson	Oct 28th, 2008 10:21:47 AM
You gotta go with less make-up... I can see the shiny goo on those dudes.. Wait a second, is that really make-up?????
sorry worried? by jacksparness	Oct 28th, 2008 10:22:04 AM
I meant SO worried. I have no idea why I wrote that.
I thought the K/S was an accident ... by Animation	Oct 28th, 2008 10:26:36 AM
in the AICN comment until I saw the very VERY slashie pics. Bromance, indeed.
New ST Pics... by foonacha	Oct 28th, 2008 10:27:58 AM
I can see the return of the slash-fiction writers; dribbling onto their keyboards as they concocked more fevered wibblings on the interwebs. These boys are far too pretty to be taken seriously in their roles.
The big twist.... by br1947	Oct 28th, 2008 10:30:14 AM
Kirk is no longer a ladies man, he's a mans man. 40 years later, Sulu gets his wish! And George Takei wept...
These pics are symptomatic by kwisatzhaderach	Oct 28th, 2008 10:32:05 AM
of Hollywood's problem. Everything these days is a bland copy of whats gone before.
Let's face it: this is Dawson's Trek by gruntybear	Oct 28th, 2008 10:32:19 AM
Except this time, Pacey's a space elf with a "round ear" fetish.
I am sorry but they look like kids not men. by erichaislar	Oct 28th, 2008 10:32:35 AM
I know that it silly but when i look at old star trek. I see a bunch of men in there roles. Not some boys playing dress up.
Turd Furgeson, high def cameras have yet to surpass film. by Stereotypical Evil Archer	Oct 28th, 2008 10:34:25 AM
The most advanced digital cameras are just now reaching the resolution of 35mm film, and they're not as user friendly yet. Anything that seems weird in the pic is actually the limitations of digital photography showing itself, or bad makeup.
The problem is, Star Trek is not pop-culture by br1947	Oct 28th, 2008 10:38:49 AM
It's nerd culture, always has been. They are trying to make a film that appeals to the mall dwelling, Starbucks drinking, CW watching tweens. Damn it, I'm a proud nerd, and I want to see a good Trek film. But this gives me pretty much 0% hope, it looks like it will be much like Superman Returns, lot of hype with a crappy product that stalls any future development.
Is Kenny Loggins doing the soundtrack for this? by Stuntcock Mike	Oct 28th, 2008 10:39:00 AM
If not, 0% interested.
Pine by GeorgieBoy	Oct 28th, 2008 10:49:22 AM
Quinto looks freakily like Spock, but I think Pine needed to shave his head and wear a Shatner Turbo 2000 hairpiece.
Sorry. by mr.brownstone	Oct 28th, 2008 10:51:36 AM
But the promotional photography for this movie is some of the worst I have ever seen. Every posed picture from this looks like rejects from a gay porn video box cover. So over lit and plasticy. Look at the original they are "homaging" -- everything about it looks better from the background to the angle to the more dramatic lighting. In the original it looks like Spock is Kirk's right hand man about to give him some advice, in the new one it looks like he's rubbing his space boner up against his leg.
So, Very Very Gay! by Andre the Frog	Oct 28th, 2008 10:55:43 AM
They might as well be kissing.
Suspicious but curious... by GaiustheBrave	Oct 28th, 2008 11:05:29 AM
I dunno. I still think everyone looks like they're in high school. It kinda reminds me of the X-Men show on WB, where they tried to market it to kids by making all the main characters kids. They don't have to be fifty, but they should at least look old enough to be a manager at Target. And, I'm not against Kirk being good-looking. But, they should've picked someone with rugged good looks. The whole "men wanna be him, women wanna be with him" thing. Pine's a good enough actor. He did well in Aces. But, I don't see him as Kirk. Kirk's son, maybe.
The First Link...... by D o o d	Oct 28th, 2008 11:13:56 AM
Shows a side by side comparison of the original Star Trek Spok and Kirk and the new ones. I have to say that the photographer who took the original photo is far superior than the new one. Look at the lighting and look at how airbrushed the new one is. LAME and FAIL!
Nice tribute pix but by nexxus7	Oct 28th, 2008 11:15:14 AM
It is a cool tribute shot and you reme,ber how iconic these two actors were as these characters. However to really mimic, they needed to raise camera height, dial down the lighting on the right.
JJ Abrams raped my childhood by cheifchirpa3000	Oct 28th, 2008 11:17:08 AM

Spock looks good - Pine looks like ass by Dick Bahls	Oct 28th, 2008 11:17:10 AM
Pine should get back inside the Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue where he belongs!!! When this thing is re-re-booted again years from now after this JJ Assface embarassing disaster, please give us someone who looks like our iconic captain. Yes, Shatner was/is a very handsome guy, but his look did not scream "male model" like this one does. Whatever you think of him, Shatner had real theatrical training. Pine belongs back doing "The Princess Diarheas" movies. This turkey should have come out at thankgiving time because it will so bomb between Wolverine & Terminator, and I will be so happy to watch it tank as I re-watch all my TOS remastered's (hopefully in blu-ray). TOS FOREVER!!!! F.U. JJ YOU TALENTLESS HACK - THIS WILL SERVE YOU RIGHT - LEAVE OUR STUFF ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aint It Cool News... Over At Empire by IAmMrMonkey!	Oct 28th, 2008 11:19:19 AM
Why, yes. Yes it is.
I'll wait for the DVD by photoboy	Oct 28th, 2008 11:20:05 AM
This is looking more and more like Nemesis: Part II to me. :(
shoot the photographer! by JackBauer24	Oct 28th, 2008 11:23:38 AM
Seriously, the old pic is so so much better. Better angle, better lighting, better make-up, better composition.
I think all of them are in their 30's. by JediRob	Oct 28th, 2008 11:24:04 AM
Or just about, and actually I'm pretty sure most are pretty close to 40. It's just perspective. The old Trek looked more like adults because we were kids. That just comes with getting older.
Dirty Dozen remake to use this strategy too! by Frisco	Oct 28th, 2008 11:28:26 AM
Who knew that the criminals who would go on to be WW2 heroes all actually went to the same high school together years earlier? It's so cool! And the main advantage of this approach is that they can tell that same, good Dirty Dozen kind of story but with characters and actors that will appeal to today's movie-going repeat customers. It's a win-win, I'm tellin' ya!
TREK BABIES by Snookeroo	Oct 28th, 2008 11:28:51 AM
The Movie. Hey, if it could happen to the Muppets...this, then, was inevitable.
Look by enderandrew	Oct 28th, 2008 11:31:42 AM
JJ is a decent director who may turn in an entertaining film, but the look so far is frankly terrible. I also don't get why all the other characters are allowed to look so vastly different, and destroy canon while at the same time bring and original character back, and then shackle one actor into doing an impression of that character.
Whoever Took This Picture Sucked by CutAndPaste	Oct 28th, 2008 11:31:57 AM
It's the little things in the new pic that make it seem extremely gay. In the original photo, Kirk is standing slightly tilted and Spock is standing at a 90 degree angle at his shoulder, in the new one Kirk is standing with his body mostly forward and Spock is standing behind him. It gives a more creepy tone to the shot and closes the distance between them which raises the homoeroticism. The original also had a much more dynamic angle which made the actors seem less occupied with each other. The new one is almost a straight on shot (like a highschool yearbook photo) which is more boring and makes the actors look more intimately close.
Looks like Spock's about to kiss Kirk. by rev_skarekroe	Oct 28th, 2008 11:35:00 AM
It's only logical that I put my tongue in your, Captain.
This is why JJ is gonna fuck it up... by V'Shael	Oct 28th, 2008 11:37:30 AM
"For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project, which was how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary colour costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut?" It's called fucking Sci Fi, you douche. Fashion in the 24th century is not going to be like today.
Well, you have to work with the Starfleet you have... by Kid Z	Oct 28th, 2008 11:42:28 AM
...not the one you wished you had. Hence, no glare filters on main viewscreens... wasn't cost-effective and they were already paying HalliburtCorp too much for the regular viewscreens.
Somehow I don't think 22nd C fashion... by Kid Z	Oct 28th, 2008 11:44:55 AM
...will include military uniforms consisting of sleeveless miniskirts, v-neck pullovers, go-go boots and highwater bellbottoms.
I look at Pine and think to myself by Abominable Snowcone	Oct 28th, 2008 11:48:08 AM
Sorry, but that's not the Kirk who is about to cheat his way out of the Kobayashi Maru scenario. He's too beautiful and can't possibly have a lumberjack-sized johnson
Retards by Spamgelus	Oct 28th, 2008 11:51:05 AM
I love how all the internerdlingers think a promo shot for the cover of a magazine is indicitive of how the movie will look. Seriously, it's an ad campaign, not a still frame from the movie. But go ahead, pick it apart, whine about how JJ Abrams sucks, and get all homophobic about their poses. Really. Do. It makes you look even much more ridiculous, and I'm into that.
Kiss?...it looks like Spock is about to stick his tongue... by FlickaPoo	Oct 28th, 2008 11:54:19 AM
...in Kirk's ear. So that's newsworthy I guess.
PINE IS GONNA MAKE OR BREAK! by SISKOKID	Oct 28th, 2008 12:03:22 PM
I have never seen Pine is anything else but just looking at him makes me think he has a whiny voice, if he comes across as a fucking no-balls touchy-feely metrosexual then I will hate this with a vengence.......THAT IS NOT KIRK!!!
Viewscreen window? by Nasty_Nick	Oct 28th, 2008 12:04:50 PM
Love the Viewscreen, looks like an actual window as you can see the hull outside. Puts a nice perspective on the size of the ship and makes it look a bit more real.
TOO KIRK-Y! TOO SPOCK-Y! by Zarles	Oct 28th, 2008 12:12:24 PM
My goodness, but you guys are a bunch of joyless douchebags.
It all hinges on the trailer for me. by Mr Nicholas	Oct 28th, 2008 12:23:09 PM

who knows by studmaster	Oct 28th, 2008 12:23:36 PM
it's entirely possible that with all the homoerotic promos they're trying to cover all demographics, including the gay contingent. Pine and the rest of the male cast were probably stuffed into slinky, skin tight duds in order to draw in the women as well as the gay dudes.
Kid Z by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World	Oct 28th, 2008 12:32:46 PM
So what do they do, be a slave to trek continuity or do their own thing? Christ people are going to bitch either way. This movie just can't win.
by cameron1975willi	Oct 28th, 2008 12:33:00 PM
[b]Zarles[/b] is right, you're a bunch of joyless douchebags!
STINO!!!!! by SingingHatchet	Oct 28th, 2008 12:34:23 PM
Pine gotta eat... well never mind... this is going downhill fast. Ah the typical AICN talkback. Oh and D@MN you Michael Bay.
JJ Abrams fingered my childhood by Stuntcock Mike	Oct 28th, 2008 12:39:31 PM

ITS NOT THEM. by alice 13	Oct 28th, 2008 12:43:14 PM
OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE! ITS NOT REALLY THEM!
Kirk: Every bit as sweaty as the real thing. by www.valiens.com	Oct 28th, 2008 12:47:07 PM
You're all going to see this so shut up.
PINENOTKIRK.COM by Dick Bahls	Oct 28th, 2008 12:48:37 PM
Stop complaining and do the right thing for a change - BOYCOTT THIS LOAD OF DOG FECES!!!!!!!
Yes I am going to be first in line by SingingHatchet	Oct 28th, 2008 12:51:15 PM
to see STINO. Just like I was first in line to see TPM and TINO. I'm such a loser.
Of course, when Obama gets elected president... by SingingHatchet	Oct 28th, 2008 12:52:18 PM
the all movies will be magically good and AICN won't have anything to talk back about.
Obama = Picard. McCain = Kirk. by SingingHatchet	Oct 28th, 2008 12:52:43 PM
You know this to be true.
Still needs... by Darth Macchio	Oct 28th, 2008 12:53:11 PM
Eddie Murphy in a fat suit. You know it. You want it. You don't believe it. But. You know it. Zefram Cochram does not approve.
They're wearing thermal underwear! Star Trek Underoos! by Snake Foreskin	Oct 28th, 2008 01:00:34 PM
This is gonna stink worse than my shit after eating a Tommy's chili-cheeseburger. This is gonna stink worse than Lindsey Lohan's cooter after a night out on the town. This is gonna stink worse than Michelle Obama's chances at winning Miss Kentucky.
Stereotypical Evil Archer by codymr	Oct 28th, 2008 01:02:36 PM
Hmmm... I'd have to disagree with your comment. The differences between film and HD video are more complex than that. I've worked on a few sets using digital 24P & traditional 35mm film and even 70mm film cameras. While they are different (on film you have to worry about preserving your detail in blacks while in HD video you worry more about detail in whites), all things being equal, 24P cameras are very easy to use. Film has to be loaded awkwardly in a camera tent whereas video goes directly to tape. Another advantage is that video can be played back on the spot to see what you actually have shot. You never have to deal with roll outs or torn film with 24P video. because HD video is easy to use and quick, many TV series have switched to shooting in HD. As for picture quality they are different but equal. Yes the resolution of 35mm film is theoretically better, but because the process is photochemical and mechanical as the film moves through the camera, there is an ever so slight blurring effect due to the film threading through the camera. On the other hand, 24P HD has less resolution, but because the information is "written" electronically as a series of 1s and 0s, there is no blur making a very clear picture. Regardless, you get a digital product that is transferred back to a film release print anyway... because most post production is done digitally on AVID or Final Cut Pro. That's my 2 cents at least.
Gay Trek: The Next Penetration by EverythingEverywhereStinks	Oct 28th, 2008 01:04:26 PM
I never thought I'd live long enough to see 'Star Trek' given the Queer Eye make over for the WB audience...but here it is. Disgusting. They won't be getting my $11 ;)
Obama = Sisko; McCain = Edward Jellico from "Chain of Command" by SpyGuy	Oct 28th, 2008 01:07:56 PM
Probably a little closer to actual truth.
Obama=Sisko, McCain=Quark by odo19	Oct 28th, 2008 01:12:19 PM
That's a little closer, imo.
www.valiens.com by Spamgelus	Oct 28th, 2008 01:15:31 PM
Right? Like these fuckwits are actually going to skip this movie. Much more likely they'll all go see it, feel that twinge that says, "this isn't actually so bad...," then get scared of their change of mind and immediately crawl back into their Know-It-All closets and scream about how they hated it anyway.
Apparently in the future... by Sci_Fi_Wasabe	Oct 28th, 2008 01:24:53 PM
Apple produces all the technology. White bridge, glossy screen main viewer. Even the color coded shirts fit. I wonder if the tricorders will look like iPhones?
JJ has NO love nor Respect for the material... by conspiracy	Oct 28th, 2008 01:25:20 PM
just read his own words. He does not "get" trek, and finds it silly and unrealistic; as opposed to those paragons of realism, Lost and Cloverfield. So instead of honest actors cast for their abilities to play an admittedly fantastic, yet plausible character, we get Star Trek: the O.C. Years, actors cast for maximum visual appeal. No doubt we will also get an ass load of Explosions, over the top Villians, quick cuts and sexual tension designed to suit the tastes of the vast mindless base that made Beverly Hills Chihuahua #1 at the box office for several weeks. This film is going to put drive the final nail into what little is left of Trek.
Wow! Dawsons Trek! by FILMFUNK	Oct 28th, 2008 01:33:19 PM
Thought the new Spok looked good til you show em next to the originals! How'd Nimoy pull it off so alienistically!?
It's fine by kaiser117	Oct 28th, 2008 01:37:05 PM
really guys you need to calm down. I trust JJ abrams enough to think that he's made a decent movie that pays homage to the originals. It will probably be good to great. It won't be perfect, sorry. And if it sucks? They won't make another one and you spent eight dollars. Big deal. Just wait and see what it's like, and stop whining. You guys are worse than the people who thought the dark knight wouldn't live up to the standards of batman begins. It may not be the second coming of kirk. DEAL
i'm trying hard by frankenfickle	Oct 28th, 2008 01:38:16 PM
but i'm not seeing jim kirk in these.
thank you spamgelus, btw by kaiser117	Oct 28th, 2008 01:40:12 PM
you have described every hater on this post and most posts
Sci_Fi_Wasabe: iPhones are more advanced than Tricorders by SpyGuy	Oct 28th, 2008 01:42:14 PM
Can a Tricorder download episodes of DOCTOR WHO? I think not!
kirk never struck me as the type of leader... by juice willis	Oct 28th, 2008 01:45:10 PM
...who, even as a cadet, would put so much time and effort into the styling of his hair. you can say that it's nitpicking, but it really is an indication of douchbagedness not previously associated with the character of james kirk. nahmean?
Ummmmm, can we wait til we've seen a frame of film.... by Iago31	Oct 28th, 2008 01:46:09 PM
...before we slam the f&*$k out of it? I mean, all the slams I'm reading about here are based on absolutely nothing other than a few photos and a couple of vague interviews. Has anyone actually SEEN anything? The complaints seem to be: A) They're too young. Well, isn't this supposed to be how they all first got together? And we know nothing about the storyline, so who says they can't be young? And by the way, Quinto is 32 years old, which is not too young in my book. B) They look too gay. Man, I don't even know what that means except that Pine seems to be thought of as a pretty-boy, which he certainly wasn't in Smokin' Aces C) It'll ruin the franchise. Guess what? Without a ground-level, fresh, original approach, Trek is dead. I say this as a life-long fan, but almost a decade of coasting on the good will of rabid fanboys utterly destroyed that franchise. Maybe a director and production team who's more concerned about making a good movie than every little continuity quibble will succeed in actually making a good movie.
Main Viewer is a window!? and that rocks!! by DrPain	Oct 28th, 2008 01:54:07 PM
At least I hope it's a window, it looks very cool, you can even see a bit of the front saucer section. Always thought the NX-01's viewer should have been glass for canon's sake. Best pic so far. I'm geeking out!
What about the theme song? by Darth Macchio	Oct 28th, 2008 01:55:24 PM
"Ya gotta have FAITH...of the heart! Nothin gonna get you down, you show up and own the town! You're a WINNER!" I can see JC Reiley dancing in the studio even now. Can you imagine the sheer genius of a Transformer/Enterprise theme song combo? Of course, we could always get those guys who wrote "Family Ties" or maybe "Different Strokes" theme songs. "Now the world don't move! To the beat of just one drum!" Ok...the reason TOS sucks is the distinct lack of a holo-deck. Only the greatest sci-fi invention of all times (ok, energy matter is pretty good but still)...but still, think about it...screw flying cars...I want my god damn holodeck. Now.
Frank Stallon should sing it... by Darth Macchio	Oct 28th, 2008 01:56:08 PM
...that's it..I'm officially a genius for that idea. Thanks for watching!
JJ Abrams has admitted that he preferred Star Wars over Trek by skimn	Oct 28th, 2008 01:56:16 PM
and that he wants to make this a good MOVIE, not a good TREK movie, but for it to stand on its own. A director can go insane trying to please all the fanboys, so the best route he can go is please himself, and hope the others follow. The side-by-side comparisons are unfair. Nimoy and Shatner are as iconic as can be in those roles and that pose. Wait till May to start the complaining, I'll give the guy a break till then.
JJ mentioning Galaxy Quest so often is great by DrPain	Oct 28th, 2008 01:58:31 PM
Love that movie. Glad he really digs it also, hope it did have some influence, it was one of the best non-Trek, Trek films ever.
Obama=Tuvok;McCain=Odo by DreadPirateRoberts	Oct 28th, 2008 01:58:35 PM
Why would Obama=Sisko? Just because he is black? Sisko had way more gravitas or presence. True, Tuvok is also black. But more importantly I think of Tuvok as highly intelligent and very nobly intentioned, but probably not great command material. As for McCain, Odo was out to clean up his world but was not really considered "one of their own" by the federation and only supported to a degree, sort of like McCain and the Republicans.
Ages by Limulus Polyphemus	Oct 28th, 2008 01:59:00 PM
Quinto is in his 30s and Pine is in his late 20s. Nimoy and Shatner were 34/35 in 1966. That's not much older. Also this movie is not supposed to take place during the original five year mission but before it. So actually, some of the actors' real-life ages are older than that of their characters' ages.
Nimoy and the Shat will fuck you up! by Sgt.Steiner	Oct 28th, 2008 02:02:04 PM
How did the original crew get together? Oh wait, they were all assigned to the Enterprise. Prior to that, they did not all hang like the Funky Bunch. And Kirk's first assignment was the Farragut. The pictures? Proof that Nimoy and the Shat are old-school bad motherfuckers. Recognize!
Uhura will be Kirk's Chocolate Fantasy... by Leafar the Lost	Oct 28th, 2008 02:05:30 PM
I am hoping for a sex scene between Kirk and Uhura in the new movie. I recall Star Trek having a ground breaking episode when Kirk was mind forced into kissing a black woman. How shocking?!? You really didn't see the actual kiss, and Kirk's expression was of total rage at being forced to kiss a "black person". If he wasn't racist, then he should have enjoyed the kiss. It wouldn't have been a big deal. Just admit it, you are a racist...
Know something? by Archive	Oct 28th, 2008 02:06:15 PM
This is finally beginning to win me over. At this point, my only concern is that I haven't seen Karl Urban really give a performance with the kind of vulnerability Bones demands - McCoy isn't an impassive wall, he's an emotionally charged reactionary. He's sensitive, and mad as hell about it. My geek-mind has been wandering the unused corridors beneath the works of Heinlein and Clarke of late, and I've been getting in the mood for some real science fiction. While I think the whole idea here is to bring the franchise more towards space adventure, these images are getting me itchy for the return of the Enterprise.
Agree with Leafar... by DreadPirateRoberts	Oct 28th, 2008 02:09:46 PM
The characters SHOULD be young at this point. Kirk especially. He was the youngest man ever to get command for christ's sake. Not sure about Pine, but the age is not the issue.
Marketing by Limulus Polyphemus	Oct 28th, 2008 02:11:07 PM
But I do agree that the cast looks too young and plasticized in the promo images. They are actually disturbing. Stepford Trek? Was the view screen ever also a window? I could be wrong but I think it was always just a view screen.
Should have said agree with Limulus... by DreadPirateRoberts	Oct 28th, 2008 02:12:51 PM
Sorry about that. Actually can't really agree with Leafar. Regardless of race, why would you be happy to enjoy the kiss when you are being forced to make out with one of your bridge crew. Talk about awkward later.
All I wish... by Archive	Oct 28th, 2008 02:14:28 PM
...is that the studios would grow a pair when it comes to original genre content, and bankroll some non-adaptations. Industries like film aren't about mitigating or nullifying risk, they're about taking the right risks. I'll keep ponying up for stuff like Chronicles of Riddick, Sky Captain, and flawed-but-great movies like Sunshine, just to see you guys trying new things. Franchises like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and the Matrix don't make themselves, gang. As someone coming up through the world of independent film, I can tell you that the more conservative and manufacture-minded you become with the creation of media, culture, and story, the more star systems will slip through your fingers...
EarthQuake Man trailer by Mr.Stiggs	Oct 28th, 2008 02:17:53 PM
New trailer on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ZBSGjokUWmQ
IPOD the movie. by knowthyself	Oct 28th, 2008 02:19:38 PM
But seriously looks good.
Continuity is Already Fucked by Limulus Polyphemus	Oct 28th, 2008 02:22:57 PM
If anyone is looking for continuity and cannon you can kiss that goodbye. The movie may rock or suck, but don't expect too much inter-connectivity with other Trek. From everything I've read here and other places, I think they have actually written the big cannon fuck you into the film. My guess (and it is just my guess) is that Nimoy plays Spock from the Trek universe we recognize as cannon. He goes back in time, purposely changing cannonical trek history into the timeline/existence that the new movie takes place in. You know, previous Trek incarnations often contradicted established cannon for the purpose of contrivance or just careless writing. Then we have to think about how many time-lines, alternate realities, parallel dimensions, and mirror universes there are in Trek. What's one more?
Fer crying out loud... by Archive	Oct 28th, 2008 02:27:47 PM
...so much of the stuff folks are adapting today was inspired, spurred into success, or at least helped along by Indiana and Star Wars, the creative genepool is recycling itself into clone-like homogeny. Believe me guys, I'm working every day to put my money where my mouth is - I'm writing up a storm, and am working in film finance towards the point when I can start producing and directing with the right kind of autonomy. I should be grateful, right? Doesn't this all mean more marketshare for someone with an original vision? At the same time, I love movies. I love going to movies. I love being inspired. I love discovering the things that come from within the folks who work in this industry. I loved Iron Man as much as the next guy. Loved it. At the same time, film can do so much more than bring the ideas of other media to life. It's true - many of the greatest films of all time were literary adaptations, and when Hollywood strays from that model, it tends to bein the name of populist entertainment. Now, it's time for our industry to grow up, learn what worked in those adaptations - from 2001 to No Country for Old Men - and use the conventions and techniques we've picked up to tell stories that are uniquely cinematic. Especially with streams of financing capital outside the business drying up, it's time for us to rely on the things we do best, and to be more selective in our productions. Now is the time for Hollywood to finally come into it's own, creatively.
Is it not true that by Magic01273	Oct 28th, 2008 02:34:51 PM
we - the paying movie goers - actually, ourselves, drive Hollywoods current fixation with remakes, reimaginings, re-boots, re-quels etc etc by keep inexplicably getting off our asses to go see them? I wouldn't dream of trying to take away a nerds god given right to bitch and moan about everything but if we insist on paying our hard earned benefit checks to these wankers then nothing will ever change. We just start to look like that girl on prom night who says "no" when you know she really means yes... ya get what I'm saying? Studios = dirty rapists Us = slutty girl walking alone wearing a plunging haltereck/micro mini/kitten heel/no knickers combo.
Canon....which I had been spelling "cannon." Ka-boom! by Limulus Polyphemus	Oct 28th, 2008 02:35:02 PM
1 a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council b: a provision of canon law2 [Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b: the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works 4 a: an accepted principle or rule b: a criterion or standard of judgment c: a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms5 [Late Greek kanōn, from Greek, model] : a contrapuntal musical composition in which each successively entering voice presents the initial theme usually transformed in a strictly consistent way
They're MEANT to look young!!!! by performingmonkey	Oct 28th, 2008 02:35:13 PM
FFS this is pre-TOS. Get that into your fucking heads, all of you. And they are never going to look the same as the original cast.
Please excuse my rant, fellow talkbackers... by Archive	Oct 28th, 2008 02:35:23 PM
...because I am indeed excited for Star Trek, and I loved Mission: Impossible III. Does anyone else feel that it's time to take on some bigger creative risks? Who else out there is writing or producing original genre content?
LOL They indeed look way too young r they all baby geniuses? by DURANGO66	Oct 28th, 2008 02:42:41 PM
I mean think about it they look like they r in their teens, teenagers piloting a multi billion dollar spacecraft? Not buying it...
Youth by Limulus Polyphemus	Oct 28th, 2008 02:45:37 PM
I agree that they are meant to look young, but the photo-shop removal of texture; skin-tones; five-o-clock shadow; and most importantly--pores, makes them look like the Knight prop from the Shore Leave planet.
They do look a bit young... by MCVamp	Oct 28th, 2008 02:50:32 PM
But the US Military is largely made up of 18-25-year-olds. Seriously, the over-Photoshopping of actors needs to stop. Cameron Diaz doesn't even recognize herself in print anymore.
...aaanyway - in other news by Magic01273	Oct 28th, 2008 02:52:54 PM
I've actually got wood for this latest Trek installment. I've always been a big fan of all things Star Trek but have never really got hung up on this canon stuff (and lets face it; only a total fool would still be clinging to the concept of "continuity" in the Trekverse). For now - I'll happily settle for someone taking my 10 bucks in order to have one last stab at injecting some life into this otherwise asthmatic sloth of a franchise. yes, its dissapointing that given the pretty much limitless potential to do amazing things in this place that they would need to resort to a the whole "Starfleet Musical" thing but who knows... I missed these characters - and if they manage to capture the spirit of them all (without wandering into parody town) then it could end up spanking my inner geek, old skool!
Shore Leave Planet... by Kid Z	Oct 28th, 2008 02:53:30 PM
...just be glad you didn't land on the Latrine Duty Planet!!!
I'm excited for this, but... by oisin5199	Oct 28th, 2008 02:56:00 PM
why does Nimoy's makeup look better and much more natural than Quinto's?
Latrine Planet.... by br1947	Oct 28th, 2008 02:59:03 PM
Back in my day we didn't have fancy-pants cutsy names, we just called it shit world...
Cast ages...Not teenager by JediRob	Oct 28th, 2008 03:01:29 PM
They do not look like teenagers. Have you seen actual teenagers? They look like babies. I'm telling you it's all perspective Kirk - 28 Spock - 31 Bones - 36 Scotty - 38 Uhura - 30 Sulu - 36
Obama is Sisko because he's the Messiah/Emissary by SpyGuy	Oct 28th, 2008 03:05:16 PM
He doesn't want the burden, but everybody keeps treating him like he's their chosen one. And this, of course, makes Hillary Clinton Kai Winn.
Good point, Magic... by Archive	Oct 28th, 2008 03:09:03 PM
...and at the same time, why not take the constructive approach? Rather than refuse to watch something we have interest in, I think it makes just as much sense to grab the horns, so to speak, and generate genre content that can compete. Taking a more active role in the media can be just as effective, if not moreso, than trying to lock out content that we both agree is competitive. On a personal level, I suppose I just get frustrated that more established filmmakers don't feel the same way - even ones like Spielberg and the Wachowskis, who built their success on taking smart risks with competitive, original content.
Nope JediRob, not perspective by br1947	Oct 28th, 2008 03:11:47 PM
I'm younger than all of them and they do look like mall dwelling teenagers, even to me. The only one that looks remotely old enough is Simon Pegg, and even he is photoshopped and caked with makeup to look much much younger than he is.
These days we see so many filkmakers by Archive	Oct 28th, 2008 03:14:47 PM
in genre cinema talking about how it was always their dream to adapt this or that comic book or Japanese property... What about the guys like Luc Besson, who have been developing stuff like the 5th Element since they were eight? Has creative geekdom gone the way of the dodo? When I'm not writing movies, I wind up writing tabletop RPG's - all those ideas and images funneled into me when I was a boy congealed, morphed, and became other ideas and images, right? But so much of fan culture is about preserving the integrity of a brand... A certain look, or a certain character. Plus, video games are inherently less creative and more problem-solving for the audience than the kinds of toys my generation played with as kids... My Star Ward action figures wound up doing some very un-Star Warsy things, you know? With the toys of today, that kind of creative cross-breeding doesn't really happen. Has the media created a culture of adapters and developers, rather than creators?
looks more like a parody by the milf lover	Oct 28th, 2008 03:23:14 PM
everything looks so fucking cheap, you'd think this is Star Trek Movie from the Wayans brothers or something
The STAR KIDS! (TM) by uberman	Oct 28th, 2008 03:27:58 PM
Boy, those guys look bad ass in a 902010 kind of way. As rugged as a babys bottom. Funny how much older and believable Shatner and Nimoy looked. Did the makers of the reboot purposely look for the most candy assed actors they could find? They look like they just got out of the Spa.
One good thing that will come from this disaster by Dick Bahls	Oct 28th, 2008 03:36:01 PM
When this piece of dog do-do comes out next year sandwiched between Wolverine & Terminator, and they completely obliterate it, you will see mainstream media critics come to realize the truly excellent performances of Shatner, Nimoy & Kelly. They will be comparing it and completely panning these posers!!! LONG LIVE TOS!!!! NEXT YEAR'S 150M SPEED RACER - DAWSON'S TREK!!!!!
These guys look like by CastingCouch	Oct 28th, 2008 03:58:01 PM
the models Rubies hired to sell Trek costumes this Halloween
It's not Shakespeare. by Friendo	Oct 28th, 2008 04:00:37 PM
It's flippin' STAR TREK. Whether Abrams makes something good out of it or it is a shit truck, it is guaranteed to be fun to watch. Maybe it'll elevate and restore the franchise. Maybe it'll be a huge-budget clusterfuck. Either way, IT WILL BE FUN.
This sit is was created to discuss movies... by menstrual_blitz	Oct 28th, 2008 04:02:11 PM
Discuss does not = mass complaints. See, it's just the same four or five of you guys repeatedly posting your negative comments, bulling everyone else out of the message board. Who ever monitors this thing must love listing to this shit. Gives me a headache. Do you all want some Cheese with your Generation Whine. AS Spock would say: "I'm sorry Captain, there is not sufficient information to form a reasonable hypothesis." Just wait for the fucking movie assholes.
You guys are all ... by menstrual_blitz	Oct 28th, 2008 04:11:58 PM
...generalizing and making gross assumptions, based on nothing. What the haters say: guy playing kirk will be horrible: And you've all based this conclusion on still photographs. Cast looks too young: though since no one has seen the film, no one knows if there is a very good reason for them looking so youthful. Bridge design sucks: After seeing 1/4 of the bridge, at most you say this. And, I still don't understand what the problem is anyway, what? that it's white and blue? Like the enterprise bridge has never been white and blue before? Seriously, are you guys watching just ONE star trek movie? Because the bridge has changed a number of times over 40 years and this is not the first time we have seen these colors dominating the set. Kirk and Spock look gay: YOU GUYS ARE THE WORST, like this is a problem, like Kirk and Spock have never looked GAY before. Have you guys even heard of fan fiction? I'm done for now. Don't this list is over. It probably is though, to much energy is devoted to trolls.
It has nothing to do with the actual age folks.... by conspiracy	Oct 28th, 2008 04:14:42 PM
but rather these people look like they've never had a bad day in thier lives. Look at the original cast...wrinkles, scars, bland, missing digits for fucks sake...they may have been actors but you can just tell they had done some time in reality like the rest of us. These new guys look like prefab people, sauna'ed, botoxed, nip-tucked, photo shopped and private trainer'd into Hollywood tabloid ready perfection. I think THATS what people are catching. It looks so sterile and Disney Popstar-ish that I now kinda wish it was more like the Steamtrek teaser we all bitched about months ago.
I once kissed a black woman by performingmonkey	Oct 28th, 2008 04:32:13 PM
I liked it so much I went on to marry the fucking bitch! The only chocolate most of you guys enjoy resides in the rectums of your bedtime butt-buddies. Rrrrecognizzze!!!
Here's the reason for casting young: by MCVamp	Oct 28th, 2008 04:33:44 PM
FRANCHISE. If you want to make 3-5 movies with the same cast taking place in a 5-year period of continuity, you assume it's going to take 5-10 years to complete the cycle. It's to extend the viability of the franchise so you don't end up with a 300-year-old Bones, an "ageless" Vulcan with more wrinkles than a Sharpei, a Scotty who looks like he earned the nickname from eating Scottish people, and an "action hero/sex fiend" captain built like Meat Loaf.
It will make money... by CAPTAIN RIGHTWING	Oct 28th, 2008 04:34:50 PM
Not necessarily because it’s good, but because they’ll push it and push it ad nauseum.
WOW THE OLD PICTURE IS SO MUCH COOLER! by Proman1984	Oct 28th, 2008 04:41:33 PM
WOW!
This woeful... by electric_sheep	Oct 28th, 2008 04:57:56 PM
Hollyoaks in space shit should never have been born. So I guess being a starship captain is the equivalent of being a nuclear sub commander. A modern day position of some seniority. A 28 year old nuclear sub commander, with his 31 year old vulcan lover then. Perhaps in the future they return to some kind of Spartan institutionalised pederasty?
spamgelus, how dare you... by GaiustheBrave	Oct 28th, 2008 05:06:37 PM
describe in perfect detail exactly what I'm gonna do. Are you stalking me? And, to whomever had the nerve to say "Damn you Michael Bay!" on AICN. It's "Fuck you, Michael Bay!" Get it right. I for one will bitch and bitch until this comes out and then will bitch and bitch about all the ppl who are still bitching. Me:9,825, Logic:0.
I just checked... by GaiustheBrave	Oct 28th, 2008 05:09:02 PM
I just checked the average age of the new Star Trek's cast on IMDB. It's 6.78. Ha! It's not funny, but I must write everything I think.
I agree w/CONSPIRACY by darthwaz1	Oct 28th, 2008 05:50:21 PM
JJ. is not even trying to carry out Gene Roddenberry's vision, he's just making a movie that will fit in line w/the rest of the pointless shit remakes that come out these days
Continuity and Cannon in Star Trek must be maintained!!!! by Leafar the Lost	Oct 28th, 2008 05:51:39 PM
Actually, not. I just want all of the diehard trekkies out there who have devoted their lives to studying and memorizing every possible fact of Star Trek to realize that they have wasted the last 30 years of their lives. Continuity and Cannon are gone. JJ Abrams is just making it all up, because its a fucking make believe story! Star Trek isn't real, and now you have to wake up from a 30 year day dream. It was just a TV show...it was just a TV show...
Is Paramount worried? by careyleefisher	Oct 28th, 2008 06:01:00 PM
Paramount has to be worried about who they have given the franchise to. The man they have given the reigns of their biggest franchise to has gone on the record as saying that "Star Trek" is "Silly"? Abrams has essentially told the fans that he wants to pay admission to this film that the "Star Trek" they love is "Silly". You know that the suits at Paramount can not be happy about this. Also, with each new pic released concerning this movie it begins to look more and more like the "Lost In Space" movie. This thing looks like a very very expensive fan film.
Original photo,better angle, better light.. by L Ray	Oct 28th, 2008 06:17:08 PM
Just saying.
"how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel rea by Dapper Swindler	Oct 28th, 2008 06:34:10 PM
Does anyone really think that the new images look any less silly than the originals?
The new Spock/Kirk shot looks shooped by Frisco	Oct 28th, 2008 06:34:30 PM
It's a shop - I can tell from the pixels and having seen a lot of shops in my time.
Add to Friends by Doc_Hudson	Oct 28th, 2008 06:40:49 PM
Galaxy Quest looked better.... And BTW,...to who said that TOS sucked because of no holodeck....TAS had one,....and it did suck...lol.
New bridge comparison by menstrual_blitz	Oct 28th, 2008 06:50:58 PM
Look, the new bridge looks like a slightly more complicated version of the bridge below. What's the fucking problem.
by menstrual_blitz	Oct 28th, 2008 06:51:22 PM

Viewscreen window by Anakin Whoopass	Oct 28th, 2008 06:51:59 PM
Love it if it's a real window. I'm sure it can also turn opaque to show other images as needed. The ultimate HUD. People have home theaters cooler than the original viewscreen so it's time for Trek tech to lean forward.
by menstrual_blitz	Oct 28th, 2008 06:52:32 PM
http://i132.photobucket.com/al bums/q9/jjeslldd/st4-crew.gif
never mind by menstrual_blitz	Oct 28th, 2008 06:55:07 PM
just look at all of the bridge designs.
Atrocious Casting by tailhook	Oct 28th, 2008 06:59:05 PM
Still not buying Sylar as Spock. And Chris Pine looks like a refugee from central casting. No pizazz unlike Shatner. Seeing the two pictures side by side pretty much illustrates the lunacy of the casting.
awful by fivezero	Oct 28th, 2008 07:13:17 PM
awful pix. can't wait to see the movie tho.
Viewscreen is a window? by matineer	Oct 28th, 2008 07:17:49 PM
Just like Galaxy Quest and Lost in Space on TV. This is a good thing? 1" of StarFleet glass + 2 Klingon photon toredoes = one very bad day. Realism!
WHOA check out the PT Anderson reference by drturing	Oct 28th, 2008 07:18:33 PM
the bridge of the Enterprise now looks like the dollar store where he buys all the pudding in Punch Drunk Love. This movie's DOA. Retroactive continuity, time travel, no one gives a shit about star trek any more, not even star trek fans. Like how many Klingons did you see at comic con this year? Exactly.
Ah come on Quinto looks perfect by drturing	Oct 28th, 2008 07:20:50 PM
but that dude who plays Kirk looks like he just walked off of fucking Gossip Girl. I mean shit, Vincent Chase would be a manlier Captain Kirk. Kirk is supposed to be a charming all species fucking hand to hand fighting man with a little paunch. If they had any real balls he'd be played by Mickey Rourke.
Look at the great job Abrams did with continuity and canon on by drturing	Oct 28th, 2008 07:23:18 PM
his own fucking tv shows
codymr you're full of shit by drturing	Oct 28th, 2008 07:36:02 PM
i mean you're halfway towards thinking you know what you're talking about, but not really. Hi end features using the Panavision Genesis do not shoot to tape. That's laughable. And there are no true worries about preserving details in black with today's modern film stocks which have like 8 stops of out of bounds latitude. The problem with digital isn't preserving detail in whites - it's the linear data volume in which there is NO detail in overblown highlights. As for loading film, that's like the least of everyone's worries on a feature set. Those ninja fucking AC crews know what they fuck they're doing and don't fuck that up. Even if you don't have to worry about a two minute change up for mags when the director wouldn't mind a second to tweak the acting, the switch to digital doesn't mean that all of a sudden magically all the time spent blocking, rehearsing, tweaking makeup and hair and props and where the mike can be goes away. As for working on shit with 70mm, unless you work in effects model photography, which I very much doubt because you're pretending you know what you're talking about... No one has shot a feature using 70mm in eons. And the only true reason for the switch to HD has to do simply with cost plain and simple. Now you fucking tell me, what looked better to you - the Dark Knight Imax scenes or Episode 2 of Star Wars? Likewise, no one edits on FCP or Avid at the spec from which a digital IP is made you douche. Nor do they do their color correction in the edit for fuck's sake. The digital vs. film debate is not that simple.
I'm not going to waste my time fighting about this by dr sauch	Oct 28th, 2008 07:37:48 PM
It looks great, can't wait to see it. Give it a chance......FATTIES!
It's like a gay porno version of Star Trek by I Dunno	Oct 28th, 2008 08:06:02 PM
Zack and Mario make a porno!
new trek looks fucking gay, literally gay... by Warcraft	Oct 28th, 2008 08:17:58 PM
someone fucked up the look on this, and I think it was making the characters too damn young and trying to sell this to a younger audience. this looks really really bad. i won't see it, sorry jj, but i'll go see cloverfield 2.
drturing by codymr	Oct 28th, 2008 08:29:47 PM
Dude, your hostility is totally not necessary. I have worked in IMAX, which is a type of 70mm negative, run sideways through the camera relative to old school 70mm... as you probably know because it sounds like you are an operator or a DP. BTW: You are right, TDK stuff did look great in IMAX. But, I've seen stuff on 24P that looked pretty damn good too... perhaps not as good as IMAX, but it looked good. And IMAX can look shitty (the film I worked on was a case in point unfortunately), so it's not without its problems (strobing and flicker etc). Plus digital technology will only look better with more R&D and time (similar to the way Fuji and KODAKs film stocks have improved over time). "The problem with digital isn't preserving detail in whites - it's the linear data volume in which there is NO detail in overblown highlights." You are right... that is a more accurate way to put it. Of course the blocking, lighting, rehearsing etc will never go away... but I don't believe I ever said it would, and I don't think that's what Stereotypical Evil Archer was referring to, but I don't want to speak for him.
BTW drturing by codymr	Oct 28th, 2008 08:50:00 PM
I do understand that a tapeless workflow using HDD or flash magazines are now more common, but depending on the size of the production tape is still used and for the sake of making my point I didn't think I needed to get into that kind of detail in a talkback.
Whoever said ... by Geekgasm	Oct 28th, 2008 09:03:12 PM
... "even Star Trek fans don't care about Star Trek these days" hit it on the head. THis movie is going to have a very hard time finding an audience, especially in between Wolverine and Terminator-starring-Batman. It smells like Speed Racer all over again. And this is coming from somebody who kind of liked Speed Racer (the parts I was awake for). And why did they coat Quinto's face in latex? He looks like a manbot!
Still think Shatner will be in it by picardsucks	Oct 28th, 2008 09:50:21 PM
Not buying the whole phoney fight between Shat and JJ. I wanna see Shatner Kirk bitchslap a villian one more time he can still throw a good punch.
Manbot by CAPTAIN RIGHTWING	Oct 28th, 2008 10:04:37 PM
chuckles
dioxholster..... by SubliminalJones	Oct 29th, 2008 01:18:38 AM
What do you mean, WE are really old to THEM? Based on the way you express yourself, I pegged you as a tweener for sure. I don't know what it is , maybe I'm entering my grumpy dad phase. But, everything you've posted on this site lately (whatever the subject matter) has made me dream about reaching into cyberspace and choking the fucking life out of you. Keep up the good work.
Tragic Trek. by The True Priapic	Oct 29th, 2008 05:38:22 AM
I loved Star Trek for a long time.My father would sit with me to watch it when I was really young and one of my earliest memories is of my father and I trying to guess where the Enterprise would shoot towards the screen from in the opening credits.I remember bing bored by The Motion Picture(as I'd gotten the Star Wars fever) but loving the Reliant,Montalban and the Horner score of Wrath of Khan.I still feel Spock's final moment is one of the great death scenes in a movies.I remember enjoying Search for Spock primarily because of the great effects and the usual great chemistry of the actors.I was absolutely devastated Honer didn't return to Voyage home but still loved the movie.Trek 5...well,I watched it at the cinema and I knew it was the beginning of the end but by then I'd aleady got into The Next Gen....I loved it even though the first two seasons were all over the place and that idiot Crosby jumped ship denying us all a few more seasons of her pert arse!I even went regularly to conventions but never dressed up...essentially they were just weekend drinkathons where you could get shit faced and watch new episodes and hear Richard 'still not married' Arnold give juicy gossip about the future seasons and episodes.Hell,I had many good times.....but then came the days of DS9(which I actually don't hate too much but find just....so so)and what followed simply wasn't Trek to me..that fucking horrible looking ship Voyager and its vile stupid annoying Capytain and crew trekking further and further away from Roddenberry's original idea.Then that 'thing' Enterprise..what in Christ's name was that?It was like one of those Hercules or Xena shows,just dreadful.But all of this was easy to ignore but the horror of the next generation films continued....as with Trek V,I went to see the films in the cinema because the actors/characters were part of my life...but dear God,they were just tv episodes on the big screen and pretty boring ones too.Killing Data essentially crippled the Next Generation and we're unlikely to see them again.Which brings me to the new movie.So far the pictures look silly and Quinto as Spock looks fucking ridiculous.Using time travel.Again.Great,so much for 'fresh'.The film will probably do okay at the BO because fans are intrigued and it'll probably get green lit for a sequel but I'm afraid Trek really is dead for me and these pictures are so bad they make me shake my head in disbelief.It just looks so....silly.
apples/oranges by konar	Oct 29th, 2008 06:23:03 AM
the original iconic photo was a carefully planned photo shoot by a recognized photographer who had a definite style with lighting ... The recreation was a whim engaged during an otherwise generic magazine photoshoot -- using the lighting they have on hand for the stark high gloss style they had in mind. They are a quick ripoff of the original done for fun. Get with the spirit! Just because the makeup looks bad in the publicity shots doesn't mean it will look like that in the film with the right lighting and whatever dugoual manipulation they will do.
I assume Shat will hand 'Kirk' a yellow shirt by pokadoo	Oct 29th, 2008 06:35:11 AM
..towards the end of the movie, in a 'passing the Batton' moment. "Put this on son, you look ridiculous!!" He then says "Were we ever that young, Bones?" to the person standing next to him, who is also young, and cleary dosen't know Shat. Person gives him strange look and exits shot. Shat just stands there raising one eye-brow, Spock style, and chuckling to himself, then freezeframe as titles role!
Will we ever see any Nimoy pics? by Mike Hunt	Oct 29th, 2008 07:22:35 AM
I want to see what old Spock looks like (20 years AFTER Unification)
pokadoo... by GaiustheBrave	Oct 29th, 2008 07:56:12 AM
if there's a God and he really wants to make everyone happy, that's the ending we'll get.
You know what I'd pay to see... by GaiustheBrave	Oct 29th, 2008 08:01:59 AM
besides hot lesbians doing unspeakable things (then again, I can get that for free on the internets)? I'd pay 10 bucks to see all the poorly made Trek films redone by film-makers who actually, I dunno, like Trek. And, while we're at it, get someone to re-do the Star Wars prequels. I'm passing a petition around. So far there's two signatures. Unfortunately, the second one cost five dollars, so I don't know how far I can take this.
Oh dear... by I AM ROCKO	Oct 29th, 2008 08:23:30 AM
...I want to stay positive as I love the original Star Trek TV series, think Wrath of Kahn is one of the best sci films of all time but that photo did not do it for me. In fact it looked like uni students going to a fancy dress party, or geeks at a Trek convention. Sigh. Need a very good trailer now to colour me excited...
I think it looks great... by spidercoz	Oct 29th, 2008 09:16:23 AM
however, having seen what the same crew has done with Fringe and how that show really, REALLY wants to be the X-Files, I'm kind of worried the same thing will happen here. On the other hand, if it comes out as good or better than New Voyages I think I'll be satisfied.
dioxholster.... by SubliminalJones	Oct 29th, 2008 09:46:53 AM
My mom is dead, you sick necrophiliac. And I did say keep up the good work. At least your posts make me feel something in my cold, dead world :) I guess I was just emotionally overwrought becuase you implied Phantom Menace was better then The Wrath Of Khan. That kind of talk will drive any sane man to thoughts of murder.
Star Trek Vision by Limulus Polyphemus	Oct 29th, 2008 10:01:27 AM
Sometimes Star Trek can be preachy, Pollyanna, pie-in-the-sky BS; but you can't discount the overall optimistic vision of a future for humanity without poverty or prejudice (unless needed for dramatic effect). That makes it all the more puzzling that there are so many people here that are racist, ageist, homophobic, TROLLS. I have issues with this movie, but I haven't seen it yet. I've already reconciled that this isn't going to be THE Star Trek but A Star Trek. I think the cast looks too young in the promotional stuff (packaged and glossy), but I have no problem with having a young cast. In this movie Kirk is the capitain o' nuthin'! In fact, I think he is supposed to still be a cadet. Once you come to grips with the knowledge that whatever you wanted the next Star Trek film to be, well this ain't it. Ahhhhh....now you can let it go and move on. If you need to, go watch New Voyages/Phase II.
Kirk: "Sulu, phasers at the ready" by ArcadianDS	Oct 29th, 2008 10:13:42 AM
Sulu: "AMMA CHARGIN MA PHASARS!!!!" WoooooOOOOOOOOOooooop!!!!!!!!! !
The Wrath of Khan by I AM ROCKO	Oct 29th, 2008 10:42:59 AM
...any person who even thinks that the Phantom Menance is a better film than the Wrath of Khan must either be crazy, George Luca$, hates SCI Fi, George Luca$, Jake Lloyd, Jake Lloyd's parents, Rick McCallum or all of the above...
More on continuity with classic Trek by Philaspenser	Oct 29th, 2008 10:52:37 AM
Paramount can actually have it both ways: let Abrams make the sets and costumes and plot developments be the way he wants them to be, and STILL keep it "in continuity" with the look and events of old Trek. All you need is a line or two said to Nimoy's Spock that's something like this: "As we look back into your past, at your younger selves, be aware that there are endless possibilities not only in the future but in the past, and the very act of examining and ultimately trying to affect events may cause the events to appear, indeed become, slightly different than the way you experienced them." Some crazy line like that, only less "explainy" sounding. That way everyone can be kept happy.
dioxholster by codymr	Oct 29th, 2008 11:10:40 AM
LOL... can't say I really want to argue. Sorry for uber nerd audio visual club talk. As for digital vs film, I think both camps will have to concede that there are advantages and drawbacks to both formats... kinda like vinyl vs CD in the audio world. I am personally still in the film camp, but I must admit that digital is slowly but surely winning me over and becomes more impressive with each passing year. I personally thought Fincher's Zodiac looked really good and that was shot on a 24P camera. And Mann's Miami Vice also looked good in it's own way (but very digital... which is OK for the super slick/ultra modern MV look and feel). But some people don't like that. Thing is, when the makers of digital capture and projection want to show off their tech it looks great, and the film stuff they bring along for comparison looks like crap. But when Kodak or Fuji shows off their 35mm film stock it looks great and the 24P video they bring for comparison looks like crap... It's kinda like Coke vs Pepsi... each side vilifies the other. As for Stereotypical Evil Archer's original post, I think I miss read what he was saying (my bad). I had thought he was referring to digital cinematography, but after rereading his post he makes it very clear that he is actually talking about digital photography (ie: an on set publicity still, not a still frame from film or cinema quality HD video). And after doing a little research, I don't even think Star Trek is being shot digitally, but rather on 35mm film. So my sparring with drturing is kinda moot.
Question? by codymr	Oct 29th, 2008 11:15:09 AM
I've asked this in a few places: Is this ST film a prequel to the TOS or is it a reboot of the series... I keep getting conflicting info from various online sources. Some say it's a reboot while others say it's a prequel, while still others say it's a reboot that is a prequel too. Anyone know?
Still...can't deny... by Darth Macchio	Oct 29th, 2008 11:45:28 AM
...it looks interesting regardless. Considering how bad 'Enterprise' sucked (altho it had the greatest theme song ever recorded next to the Tranformers "you're a winner" song), it seems ST quality is basically swiss cheese with moments approaching genius and years of mediocrity. HBO has been playing Kahn and it's every bit as good fun as the first time I saw it in the theater eons ago. It all seems so effortless and even with its faults, it takes you on a great journey from start to finish. Call The Shat a hack if you want but that famous line "Of all the souls I've met, his was the most...human." still puts a lump in my throat! And I'm happy to think of Montalban as Kahn and not that glib weirdo, Mister Rourke. I was not overwhelmed by MI:3 and don't watch 'Lost' at all so I have no bias towards JJ one way or the other (did like his idea for Cloverfield tho even if it's just me) but I'd love to see this work. I think even those of us who haven't been paying any attention to Trek for years would probably welcome some quality from the Trek universe. Even if we discuss it not being needed or even wanted. I guess we'll see...
Good question codymr by I AM ROCKO	Oct 29th, 2008 11:48:01 AM
I really would like to know that aswell. I can handle it being just a prequel. I am not sure I can handle a reboot/prequel for the Trek universe as it is so rich and JJ has hinted that it will change some of backstory. Also some people have mentioned parallel universe, I'm not sure how true this is, but it worries me. Batman Begins- reboot great! Hulk- reboot/sequel fine! Casino Royale- reboot/prequel/sequel- fine (Bond has been played by so many actors, not doing time lines according to books etc that it worked well) Star Trek- reboot/prequel/changing canon- NOOOOOOOOOOO!
I AM ROCKO by codymr	Oct 29th, 2008 12:14:22 PM
Yup, I'd have to agree with you almost 100%. Although I must admit I'm not up on all of my ST canon. So the filmmakers could get stuff by be more readily than others. If this is in fact a reboot, I wonder if it was felt that the ST universe had become so full with "history" that they felt it was hard to write something original... did they feel they were out of moves and decided to start from scratch?
Damn it! No JJ, all wrong. by Jaka	Oct 29th, 2008 12:28:25 PM
What the hell is this, "For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project, which was how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary colour costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut? It's ridiculous and as potentially cliched as it gets. How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?" Well fuck you. It's not about you. It's about all the people who've felt exactly the opposite of that BS you just spewed for the last 40 years, asshole. Damn it. Why can't somebody just take ST seriously and make a regular old ST movie that's part of the ongoing and official ST timeline? Why? Why is this so damn hard to do?
This image was taken by Empire, not JJ's team. by untamedc	Oct 29th, 2008 12:46:20 PM
Why is everyone screaming? This is NOT an image from the film. This was taken by some ball-less hack photographer at EMPIRE MAGAZINE, probably under strict orders to not make the angle or the shadows as extreme as the original kirk and spock pic. You can bet that on set of the movie, the lighting, angles and make-up were top shelf.
To Boldly Go by Bubba Foom	Oct 29th, 2008 02:56:07 PM
Here’s what’s wrong with today’s young creatives. One, they’re young. Nobody who “gets” Mighty Isis and Dyna Girl (or whatever the hell the name might have been; yes, I watched it back in the day, yes I lusted—but that’s over now) after seeing clips on Youtube needs a career in the creative arts. If the conversation starts off “My movie is like…”—stop the hell right there. I don’t need to know that you can rehash shit. All art is rehash, but the good stuff isn’t just shit, it’s mulch. JJ excretes. 20-something “writing” teams tend to excrete. Two: They’re gloss. Formula for “New and Wow”: texturize a costume (Superman Sucks, X Men Leather Weather Report, Spiderman, etc…), include sly references to how cool and hip past incarnations were with their un-cool and un-hipness (same damn boulders on every Star Trek planet, panty shots of Uhura, fucking visibly-strung Catspaw fuzzy octopus puppets); throw in “realistic” special effects (fuck majesty, fuck composition—give us more shaky cam space fights and a damn alligator Battlestar crawling through space—in other words, fuck actually knowing what’s going on onscreen, just give me an experiental boner!). Now, by the time the movie’s over and the director’s hauled all his money off to the Homage Bank, viewers are so covered in Vaseline they can’t get a good grip on anything in order to scratch beneath the surface. I posted a comment a few days back about Chris Pine’s icy blue eyes. Absolutely Nordic. What’d I say? I said Kirk’s (for every monkeyfuck ready to berate that maybe the new Kirk’s eyes are blue because PINE’S eyes are blue (snork snork), yes, his eyes are blue, you dumbfucks, but the point being made was that in all the pre-publicity talk about really honoring and getting down to details and wanting this done right…they go and cast a dude with blue eyes—no problem there—maybe without a thought to actually looking at the character he’s supposed to be playing. Hey, it’s Hollywood. Brown contacts is all it takes. The point was this: don’t talk the shit if the shit proves to be hollow. I don’t care what color Kirk’s eyes are. Kirk is not real. Guess what, everybody knows that. But expect to be nitpicked when you come out talking shit. JJ and crew did verily talk shit. They performed the whole song and dance. So excuse me when I say, “Brothers, you missed a step there.” When somebody gets around to casting a Mexican Captain America, somebody call me. Seriously. No irony meant. I love Star Trek. The show had some imagination. The show also had Spock’s Brain, Turnabout Intruder, The Way to Eden, the aforementioned Catspaw, and—dammit, Jim, I gotta mention it, yes, in the words of Samuel L. Jackson—And the Children Shall Muthafuckin’ Lead. But how many of us haven’t banged something in abject frustration and turned around to shout, “I…Am…Kirok!” (insert sex jokes here) Star Trek was mulch. Fertile ground for planting cool thoughts. That What If. Yes, it was a TV show and yes it was designed to make money for advertisers, but don’t tell me there wasn’t some genuine thought involved in that show. People spit on “vision”. Vision is retro in an un-cool way. Vision is “silly”. Did Roddenberry have a vision? Hell yeah, he had a vision of being successful enough not to have to eat catfood in his old age. Did the show have a vision? For the most part. It was definitely a product of its times, but it wasn’t a complete slave to its times. If it had been shot in shaky cam with actors vehemently saying “Frak the Klingons!” would it have been less of a silly show? Less of a dated enterprise? Nostalgia is cool, but it doesn’t blind me to Star Trek’s faults. Blind love is called religion. I love it even with faults. I point out those faults to make it better. Trek was never about being Utopian. You don’t try to revenge-kill Gorns in Utopia. The one thing that endeared it to me was its insistent posing of questions. Season One, Kirk was always questioning himself. The Motion Picture was all about Spock questioning the entire arc of his life. The Wrath of Khan asked us what’s the point? Picard questioned his strength of character in Home. Sisko wondered what was the point of values during a time of war. Janeway, ok, we won’t go there. Archer is a no-fly zone too. So where are we now with JJ and crew? The movie’s not out yet, but based on track records alone, I’m not walking into this holodeck expecting the tits McGee. If it’s tits Ethel, I’ll shrug and say at least it was a cool geek curiosity. If it’s tits Clyde, I’m done with Hollywood. Hell, they’re already giving me The Day the Earth Stood Still as sponsored by new Tide Green. JJ’s Star Trek could be a good movie. JJ’s Star Trek might make us have to watch where we step. I’ll go see it (unless additional previews show it to be truly of WB quality, but then again, the wife likes space movies with hellacious special effects and I likes me some wife, so there’s no unless; they’ve got my 6 bucks). But I’m not expecting much. Not with Romulan tats, a seemingly rehashed First Contact plot (which wasn’t wholly original or thought out itself), the undeniable Abercrombie-ness of every still shot so far (Mad TV rocks!), or even the slim possibility of a brief academy locker room shot of Rand and Uhura looking for love in all the wrong places…I just ain’t expecting to go home with a sense of wonder. I expect I’ll go home feeling tired…used up, looking for Carol Marcus and the Genesis Cave.
This movie looks like it was shot for TV by Samuel Fulmer	Oct 29th, 2008 03:05:02 PM
I won't pass any real judgement until I see a real trailer, but this movie looks cheap.
When the new Trek movie is overshadowed by Samuel Fulmer	Oct 29th, 2008 03:07:47 PM
by a Takai/Shatner wedding feud, you know there's a problem.
Who is their target audience? by Dick Bahls	Oct 29th, 2008 03:18:19 PM
Gay guys who also happen to be retarded who also happen to shop at J Crew who also happen to not mind that Scotty is not wearing the necessary greasy toupee? How many of that specific nitch audience can there possibly be?
This is Pussy Trek! Kirk ain't no Pussy! by Snake Foreskin	Oct 29th, 2008 05:26:20 PM
Chris Pine, however, is one stanky pussy. He's too far gone to call a douche. He's more like toxic shock.
To codymr by Geekgasm	Oct 29th, 2008 07:17:59 PM
Its a reboot. Abrams and those two homely writers have been very coy about it so as not to stir the turd too much, but from the look and the interviews and the leaked information, its clearly a reboot. There's gonna be Nimoy and some mumbo-jumbo about "the altered timeline" and whatever, so as to provide a fig leaf of a rationale for what they're doing, but the truth is, its just a big ol' reboot. And a means for some marginally talented people to further their careers on the backs of other people's work, not unlike theit show that seems an awful lot like a less interesting version of The X-Files.
Just saw who is in the cast by cantankerous	Oct 29th, 2008 07:38:18 PM
Sylar from Heroes is Spock!? Yuck! Who the hell is the boy-toy playing Kirk? At least I don't know who he is. Shaun of the Dead as Scotty? Yeah, ok, I'll buy that. Eomer from LOTR is Bones? Isn't he a bit big and hunky for that part? The only one I like is Scotty. I'm thinking I hate the casting of Spock.
The " Aren't I Cute " Trolls Are Out In Force Today! by Real Deal	Oct 29th, 2008 08:16:48 PM
You guys no really nothing about this film yet. I've been a Trek Fan since day one of the franchise ( 1966 I was in High School at the time ) and I hope it is a reboot! Traditional Trek has been done to death! In order to have something new and relevent they have to do something like this. I hope this is a good movie and I hope it does well. I also hope this means a new start for Star Trek. God knows the genra needs it! But you know like you I really don't know what this film is going to be like either. But I'm willing to give it a chance and be positive about it. Not diss it over a few pictures from which you can't tell much at all.
Geekgasm by codymr	Oct 29th, 2008 09:36:12 PM
Yeah that is my feeling too... but I was not sure because as you said, Nimoy is in it. I guess we will see in 2009.
Amazing by shran	Oct 29th, 2008 10:19:10 PM
that so many experts on gay porn have decided to comment on the new Trek pics. I sure am glad that you fellas have enough experience to let me know what it looks like. Much obliged. Also, it's good to know that so many of you have seen the film and can let me know that it's not going to be worth seeing for myself. Because of course, only a complete idiot would form a final opinion solely based on the pictures that have been released thusfar.
Why is Kirk's head shrunk like a jockey's? by Wonderthump	Oct 29th, 2008 11:35:59 PM
Kirk had them captain's brains; Pine looks like he's going to ride Seattle Slew.
There are trolls here by Dick Bahls	Oct 30th, 2008 08:39:57 AM
And they are the studio plants who are trying to tell us that everything that has come out so far on this movie doesn't look like ass. And yes, it looks very gay. I have gay friends who have told me so and are looking forward to this picture, especially J. Crew Kirk, played by that wonderful actor from the Lindsay Lohan movie & the Princess Diaries 3.
Dick Bahls by shran	Oct 30th, 2008 09:27:05 AM
You are either insulting your gay friends or you yourself are "conflicted". In either case, your comments only serve to verify my previous statement.
Rebooted Reboot by Limulus Polyphemus	Oct 30th, 2008 10:03:48 AM
If you think about it. All the Star Trek shows are reboots of the original (with maybe a little more attention being paid to continuity). Not defending anything, just sayin'.
Shran by Geekgasm	Oct 30th, 2008 10:49:04 AM
You should watch more gay porn. Its hot.
Geekgasm by shran	Oct 30th, 2008 04:56:46 PM
I watch plenty of gay porn. It just features lesbians. B ut I never said I was opposed to it. Of course, nobody is going to read this.

Talkbacks

A Few More TREK Images From Empire!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks